Harish Kumar,

You rightly said that we cannot "say for sure" whether or not we human beings possess a non-material "soul" that would survive us after the death of our mortal bodies.

However, all the evidence so far gathered by science appear to indicate that there is no requirement to hypothesise the existence of any non-material or supernatural entity. Such a theory is not required to explain or understand the complexities of life, consciousness or to account for our ability to enjoy the beautiful aspects of this world (including of the flowery constructs of language, music and so on).

Anand

Understanding is something a man or a machine can do. There is no difference between a computer processing rules and a man learning a language. But only a man, possessed of a soul, can feel the language,appreciate the beauty in flowery constructs,admire the placement of words and enjoy reading it. Machine cannot do all this and there is no way to prove it does or does not. But there is a possibility a soul may enter a computer and possess it , ghost in the machine. But I cant say for sure.

Saravanan,

The second youtube clip is more interesting! Here, the astrologer first reads out (verbatim) Tamil verse, and then translates this in English, asking for confirmation.

What is surprising are questions such as "Father mother are living now" and so on.

These reveal time depended information in present tense Tamil!

What if the same palm leaf is read out in the future, after his father has died? Will it then read (in the form of Tamil poetry), "Now, your father is dead"? Does the content of the palm leaves change with time?

Nadi astrology is not even a clever fraud!

Anand

Saravanan,

I did watch the "must watch video" on the "the confession of foreigner", whose link you provided.

There is nothing new in this. The same old stuff about how the Nadi astrolgers take your thumb print, and how using these they pick up a bundle of palm leaves. And about the 25 odd minutes of "yes/ no" questions which they use to narrow down the search to your own set of palm leaves!

In this particular case, after finding Dadhichi's own set of palm leaves (12 or 13 chapters of information!), all that the "astrologer" could read out from these were inane personal details such as his name, date of birth, names of siblings and so on. None of these details (as shared to us by Dadhichi) can be said to be "predictions" -- beings facts already known to many people at the time that the astrologer "read these out" from the palm leaves.

The only question is on how Dadhichi's details were known in advance thousands of years back! But then how do we know that these details were really known or recorded thousands of years back? Has any one verified this?

From the 12 or 13 chapters with information about Dadhichi, why could the astrologer not intimate something about the future (as on the date that these were read out)?

In fact, Dadhichi does confess that "Future readings were a bit out"! Why were future readings "out"? Why was the past so accurate, and the future not so? Does this not suggest possibility of fraud?

Anand

this is the confession of foreigner, who had nadi astrology experience . this is must watch video

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=N5S0HHN78S4

 this another video which show nadi reader reading his prediction to a foreigner. i desperately want anand sir  to see this

 http://youtube.com/watch?v=9j4IjMrX7Pw

 i am waiti ng for your reply

This guy is a retired man with plenty of time and he posts controversial things and gets lots of comments. Does Sulekha pay for posting comments  ? Can any one tell me ? I think Sulekha should give him some shares as three-fourths of the blog  content is contributed by him directly or indirectly.

Its funny to see everyone rush to comment on his articles. I generally ignore articles in his name , but sometimes comment and he responds with foul language and I go away.

amused666,

You asked, "Has anyone in the world proven that computer programs has subjective experiances?"

Can you quote anyone in the world who has said that computer programs have subjective experiances? No one has said this. So stop asking this question!

You defined "subjective experience" as something that characterizes human behaviour based on "awareness". So how do we test if another human being, animal or machine has "subjective experiences". Let me put this differently:-

Let us say you are interacting with an entity that looks and behaves like a human being. Can you recognize whether or not this entity has "subjective experiences"?

If a machine is able to fool you into believing that you are really interacting with a human being, such a machine would pass the Turing's test for "subjective experiences". That is all that I say.

I do not at all say that a computer program that can pass the Turing's test for playing Chess would also pass the test for "subjective experiences". No, it would not! We have NOT yet made machines that would pass the Turing's test for "subjective awareness".

You seem to suggest that we will NEVER be able to make such machines. May be, you are right. May be, human beings will self-destruct in a nuclear holocaust before technology advances to that level. But there does not appear to be any theoretical limit (like the speed of light) that would bar us from ever implementing such a machine. THAT is my point.

That should answer your last question, "Has scientist ever demonstrated the existance of subjective experiance in any computer program that he has developed?"

No. This has NOT been done. Technology has not advanced to the level as to develop a machine that would pass the Turing's test in "subjective experiences". So now, will you stop asking THIS question?

Anand

amused666,

You asked several questions:-

a) "DO u agree that u delibrately propogate pseudoscience? "

I disagree. I have expressed view that strictly conform to scientific thinking. By no stretch of imagination can ANY of my views qualify to be referred as "pseodoscience" (as per the standatrd meaning of the term "pseudoscience")

b) "Do u agree that u have been trying to superimpose technical terms like learning and cognition in AI and signal processing on subjective human experiances?"

I disagree. I have used scientific terms appropriately, and in the way almost all modern scientists use these terms in the year 2008.

c) " Do u plead guilty of cheating the readers by equating technical terms like learning and cognition with subjective human experiance such as understanding and sight."

I plead NOT GUILTY! The views on perception/ learning by humans, cognition and Artificial Intelligence as expressed by me represent the most widely accepted opinion among scientists in the year 2008. I had named scientists Vilayanur Ramachandran, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett....

Anand

Anand,

U accusingly ask me if I have read ur blog on pseudoscience or if at all I am aware of the word pseudoscience. There is no point in showing pride and vanity by trying to disclose my ignorance or poor knowladge on a subject. Just try to answer my question.  This is ur blog not mine. U have written an article and I question it. Period.

DO u agree that u delibrately propogate pseudoscience? Do u agree that u have been trying to superimpose technical terms like learning and cognition in AI and signal processing on subjective human experiances? Do u plead guilty of cheating the readers by equating technical terms like learning and cognition with subjective human experiance such as understanding and sight.

Anand,

U seems to be very upset with my pseudoscience remark. I donot know where u got the notion of pseudosecular? U have also started to accuse me of ignorance on the particular subject. Instead of repeating ur arguments (which I have read from ur blogs and u some how seem to think I haven't read) cool ur head down a bit and think on the arguments that I have raised. Once u have thought cool headedly answer my question honestly.

Has anyone in the world proven that computer programs has subjective experiances? (the computer programs include heuristic algorihms that u have mentioned)

If you donot understand my question I can elaborate. Every human being knows what is meant by subjective experiance. When a human being thinks, talks, breaths, hears or feels touch he is aware that he is doing it. He knows that he can control it.  This awareness that one is performing an action and the ability to control it, this is what is meant by subjective experiances. Subjective experiance includes knowing, understanding, feeling touch, sight, hearing etc. Behind every subjective experiance there lies an awareness of the person performing those action.

Every human being have confessed to such subjecive experiances. I believe you would also confess of having subjective experiances!!! So it shouldn't be very difficult for you to answer my question. Has scientist ever demonstrated the existance of subjective experiance in any computer program that he has developed?